Re: Special Web Page Proposal for W3C site - discussing proper use of WCAG Techniques

Some comments about the document:

#1. SUFFICIENT: "Sufficient techniques" are only "sufficient" to meet a 
Success Criterion if the technique is accessibility supported. There are 
many "sufficient" techniques that do not guarantee accessibility if you 
consider MacOS or Linux platforms (for example, most of the Flash or PDF 
techniques). This must be clarified.

#2. FAILURES: Although, technically speaking, the failures mean direct 
violations of the Success Criteria, this does not necessarily mean a 
failure of WCAG 2.0 Conformance, since they may affect content that is 
not relied upon. In general, any inaccessible content that meets 
Conformance Requirement #5 may fail the SC, but still allowing 
Conformance. For example, a totally inaccessible PDF document that is 
just a "print version" of a completely accessible HTML document.

#3. Accessibility: Google Docs is not only inaccessible to blind users, 
the document is also failing SC 1.4.4 Resize Text (I have low vision and 
increasing the text size produces overlaps and the content loss).


Regards,
Ramón.

Gregg wrote:

>> #1. The document does not describe the relationship between techniques and failures to the WCAG2 Success Criteria. There is some wording in Understanding WCAG 2.0 that could be at least referenced to put this resource more in context of the overall WCAG2 framework and resources.
> 
> Fixed   See new draft
> http://tinyurl.com/WCAGTechNote
> 
>> #2. The document seems to primarily talk about techniques and failures document by the WCAG WG and does not talk much about the possibility for other techniques and failures. This may reinforce the unfortunate myth that only WCAG WG can document techniques and failures.
> Fixed 
> 
>> #3. (Minor) the overall tone seems more preventive and negative rather than inviting. For example, how about something like "The Role of Techniques and Failures in WCAG 2" rather than "Proper Use of WCAG 2.0 Techniques and Failures"? I think we need to find the balance between explaining what techniques and failures are, and cautioning potential misuse due to misunderstanding of their intended purpose.
> 
> Yes it is.  And after reading it over again (and making edits to address your comments )  it still is a bit - and I think perhaps it should be.   (not negative - but short and focused on clarifying rather than instructing.      "The Role of...."   is all in the Understanding document.    We were asked for something VERY SHORT and VERY CLEAR  that could be used by people who misunderstood the Role.    I am concerned that adding more words -- or turning this into a general discussion -- would defeat what we were asked for. 
> 
> That being said - I have tried to add more text to the document to help with your comments above.   Take a look.

Received on Sunday, 17 February 2013 09:54:16 UTC